Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on 'The strategy for Europe's Internal Market and Recommendations for the Review of Target Actions'
Date: 2000-03-30
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: competition law, financial policy, free movement of persons, labelling, monetary union, single market

C 140/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.2000

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘The strategy for Europe’s Internal Market
and Recommendations for the Review of Target Actions’

(2000/C 140/10)

On 27 January 2000, the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the third paragraph of Rule 23
of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on ‘The strategy for Europe’s Internal Market
and Recommendations for the Review of Target Actions’.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 8 March 2000. The rapporteur was
Mr Little.

At its 371st plenary session (meeting of 30 March 2000) the Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion by 112 votes in favour, four against and with three abstentions.

1. Background

2. General Comments on the Commission’s Strategy

Communication

The Commission’s Communication (1) of 24 Novemb-
1.1.
er 1999 provides a proposed strategy for the Internal Market
over the next five years. The Commission considers that the
strategic objectives should be:

— improving the quality of life of citizens;

— enhancing the efficiency of product and capital markets;

and

— improving the business environment

— exploiting the Internal Market’s achievements in a changing

world.

The text of the Communication was submitted for discussion
at the Internal Market Council meeting on 7 December and
then to the European Council in Helsinki.

1.2.
Following consideration of the ‘annual cycle for the
Internal Market Strategy’ (figure 1 page 5), the SMO proposed
that the Committee gives an Opinion on the Single Market
from a horizontal perspective in time to be considered each
April by the Commission before it adopts Proposals for Review
of target actions. This Opinion would include views on the
Scoreboard to be published each November and on the Cardiff
Report (on the functioning of product and capital markets) to
be published each January/February.

1.3.
For the year 2000-cycle, it has been agreed that the
Committee gives an Own-Initiative Opinion which consists of
recommendations for the review of target actions together
with a response to the Strategy document and views on the
other documents referred to in the preceding paragraph.

2.1.
The Committee strongly welcomes the Commission
Communication. It is very much on anticipated lines and very
close to what the Committee called for in its 4th Additional
Opinion on the Single Market Action Plan. While the Com-
mittee proposed the setting of strategic objectives for the next
three years, it acknowledges the logic of adopting a five-year
period in line with the mandate of the new Commission.

2.2.
The Committee’s main criticism of the broad strategy
is that it considers the aspect of enlargement is not sufficiently
developed. To seek to ensure that the Single Market contributes
to a successful enlargement is a valid objective but that is not
sufficient.

2.2.1.
It is vital that the current Single Market for the fifteen
states is streamlined and geared up to function as part of a
larger market serving, in due course, almost twice as many
countries and a population increased by around 30 %. The aim
must be to ensure that the adoption of Single Market rules by
the fifteen is as near completion as possible at the time of the
next accession.

the whole ‘acquis communautaire’ — at

2.2.2.
It is as essential that the applicant countries are in a
position to adopt the rules of the Single Market — and indeed
the time of
of
accession. The structural reform already underway in the
candidate countries will be accelerated still further with the
advent of the Single Market. It is essential to take cognisance
of the economic and social consequences of this structural
reform throughout the Single Market if it is to function
properly. Transition periods could be allowed as described in
the ESC Opinion on the Single Market and Enlargement (2).

2.2.3.
It is just as important for the EFTA States to be
subject to the same obligations as the fifteen to follow up the
implementation of actions necessary to fulfil the new strategy.

(1) The Strategy for Europe’s Internal Market, COM(1999) 624 final.

(2) OJ C 329, 17.11.1999, p. 3.

18.5.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 140/37

2.3. Much of the content by way of strategic and oper-
ational objectives deals with facets of the Single Market which
the Committee had identified as requiring policy development
and action. However, as with many strategic plans it prompts
the need to be persuaded that implementation of the strategy
is realistic.

2.7.
The ESC believes it to be critical, for the achievement
of the benefits to be realized by the economy as a whole, that
the fundamental importance of the Internal Market is given
due weight in deliberations at the forthcoming IGC, where the
focus will be preparations for enlargement of the Community.

2.4.
The Committee is pleased to note that, with one
exception, the somewhat sweeping wording of certain of the
stated objectives in the consultative document has been
converted into more realistic terms. The exception is the
strategic objective ‘to improve the quality of life of citizens’.
The Single Market itself cannot deliver on that point for, even
if opportunities become available, citizens may choose not to
take advantage of them. The Committee remains concerned
because it would be virtually impossible to establish that such
a proposed objective was met. Putting forward such an
objective appears to be designed for initial effect rather than
to provide a measurable target.

2.4.1.
The Committee has drawn attention on previous
occasions to the lack of success in identifying economic
benefits and social developments attributable to the Single
Market. In its most recent response to the Committee, the
Commission itself acknowledges that ‘it is difficult to isolate
the Single Market effect in macro-indicators as these reflect the
aggregate impact of economic, political and technological
developments’.

2.4.2.
Discussion of the economic successes and social
developments attributed to the Single Market may be simpler
if a distinction is made between the roles in which ordinary
citizens have felt the effects: as entrepreneurs, workers or
consumers. It is then much easier to identify and measure
these effects. Use can also be made of existing models for
determining social indicators, a range of scientific research
work or the methods already applied in individual Member
States to measure the effects of economic developments on
citizens in their different roles as entrepreneurs, consumers
and workers.

2.5.
The proposed annual cycle of monitoring, dialogue,
analysis and review is endorsed by the Committee but it
has some reservations as to the necessity to publish two
Scoreboards per annum. The publication of only one would
be logical as the process is to be an annual one. Furthermore,
it is noted that the Commission is seeking additional resources
in order to pursue the new Strategy and the cost of each
Scoreboard cannot be negligible.

Subject

the Committee
to the above reservations,
2.6.
supports the proposed strategy for the Internal Market as
proposed by the Commission in its Communication.

3. Specific Comments on short-term Target Actions

within the Strategy

3.1.
To meet the strategic and operational objectives in the
Commission’s Strategy, 111 target actions have been identified
within an 18-month time horizon. The Commission states
that continuity will be attained and that the recommended
preparatory work will optimize the possibility of achieving
those aims within the stated period of time.

3.2.
The presentation of such a comprehensive list of target
actions provides a useful tool in itself but the Committee feels
that it is a contradiction in terms to describe them all as ‘short-
term priorities’.

The ESC takes the view that it is unrealistic to expect
3.3.
all the targets to be met within the 18-month period given the
well-publicized difficulties in reaching agreement at Council in
certain cases. Similar concerns are held regarding action
required at state level where failure to transpose legislation or
to apply it consistently (or at all, in some cases) suggests that
the protection of national interests still predominates.

There are implied priorities within the target actions as
3.4.
the 18-month period is broken down into six-month sections.
However, it is not clear to the Committee whether the placing
of an item within the timetable is determined by its importance
as determined by Presidency Work Programmes or is based
simply on the minimum time necessary for implementation.

It is acknowledged that the Commission should not
3.5.
pre-judge political priorities for action. However, the Com-
mittee believes that the question of economic and social
priorities is a different matter and, therefore, that the Com-
mission should itself endeavour to identify key priorities from
that standpoint. Emphasis should then be placed on the
achievement of those targets.

The Committee has issued opinions dealing specifi-
3.5.1.
cally with about half of the 46 target actions which constitute
legislative proposals and while the Committee is generally
supportive in these cases, it does not necessarily regard them
as having equal priority. The Committee’s views as to priorities
are incorporated in Section 6 which deals with recommen-
dations for the first Review of the target actions.

C 140/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.2000

4. Comments on Scoreboard No 5

4.1. General

of EFTA statistics. Nevertheless, the Committee shares the
Commission’s concern regarding the slow pace of implemen-
tation of recent legislation and the poor prospects for complete
elimination of the transposition backlog.

4.1.1.
The Commission’s Single Market Scoreboard No 5 is
dated 3 December 1999 and was published shortly before ‘The
Strategy for Europe’s Internal Market’ was considered by the
Internal Council and at the Helsinki Summit.

4.2.2.
The number of infringement procedures remains
high and would be even higher, in the Committee’s view, but
for the discouraging effect of the long lead time for the closure
of cases.

4.1.2.
facets of the Single Market viz.,

The report provides detailed information on four

— the regulatory environment

— feedback from a business survey

— price monitoring

The Committee awaits with interest

the overall
4.2.3.
assessment of SLIM now under way.
It agrees with the
Commission that the political support behind simplification in
principle is not reflected in the will to carry it through the
legislative process.

— monitoring of the Financial Services Action Plan.

4.3. Feedback from Business (Part C)

4.1.3.
The clear and factual form of presentation is wel-
comed by the Committee and the information provided is
considered to be very useful in relation to the areas highlighted.
The analysis of progress by individual Member States is felt to
be particularly helpful in increasing the pressure for action
where states are clearly in default of their obligations.

However, the Committee feels that the Scoreboard
4.1.4.
will not provide the same welcome impetus to necessary
action which was achieved by Scoreboards 1 to 3. It no longer
has the Action Plan for the 18-months to 31 December 1998
as a base nor does it provide a comprehensive review of the
progress of the Single Market.

4.1.5.
The Committee made no specific comments on
Scoreboard No 4 published in June 1999 as it took the view
that the situation reported was not significantly different from
that in the Commission’s Assessment of the Single Market
Action Plan (1) and on which the Committee issued an
Opinion (2) in May 1999. As stated in paragraph 2.5 above,
the ESC doubts the value of publishing two Scoreboards each
year.

4.1.6.
In the view of the Committee it is essential that
progress towards the adoption of Single Market Rules and
Practices is reviewed in the annual screening process which is
conducted with the applicant countries. It is requested that the
Commission give a commentary on such progress in future
Scoreboards.

4.2. Regulatory Environment (Part B)

4.2.1.
The clear and informative presentation of data con-
cerning implementation of Internal Market legislation con-
tinues to be one of the most impressive features of the
Scoreboard and it has been enhanced by the incorporation

4.3.1.
The results of the latest business survey again make
interesting reading and do not vary significantly from the
Committee’s own findings.

4.3.2.
A new feature, particularly welcomed by the Com-
mittee, is the assessment by business in each Member State of
the degree of satisfaction with the Single Market. The indication
of improvement over the last two years is not challenged and
is welcomed but, nevertheless, the rate of satisfaction expressed
in absolute terms is disappointingly low (EU average is only
61,8 %) in 1999.

4.3.3.
The Committee agrees with the conclusion reached
by the Commission that not all obstacles affect business
performance to the same degree. In the view of the Committee,
the consequent need to set priorities is not reflected in the very
long but undifferentiated list of Target Actions contained in
the new strategy.

4.4. Progress on Financial Services Action Plan (Annex 1)

4.4.1.
The reported progress to date in implementing the
Action Plan (3) adopted in April 1999 is largely limited to
action by the Commission in issuing and pursuing legislative
proposals and other documentation. Certain political stum-
bling blocks to the enactment of the proposals are highlighted
in the report.

4.4.2.
The Committee did not draw up an opinion on the
Action Plan itself but a good number of the proposals it deals
with are the subject of separate opinions which the Committee
has given or is preparing. Whilst the Committee supports its
broad thrust,
it is extremely disappointed by the lack of
political determination which renders unrealistic even the
extended timetable for completion of the Action Plan.

(1) COM(1999) 74 final.
(2) OJ C 209, 22.7.1999, pp. 28-34.

(3) COM(1999) 232 final.

18.5.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 140/39

5. Comments on Cardiff Report [Report on the func-
tioning of Community product and capital markets (1)]

5.1. Scope of Report

5.1.1.
The Commission document consists of an extensive
report together with over 30 pages of Statistical Annexes and
a further 30 pages of Commission working documents. The
report has a dual purpose viz. to provide input for the
preparation of the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines and to
serve as the basis for Commission proposals to update target
actions included in the Internal Market Strategy.

A two-pronged approach has been adopted under
5.1.2.
which, firstly, it monitors and assesses product and capital
market performances to identify regulatory failure at EU level,
and, secondly, prescribes policy to improve the quality of the
regulatory framework and to remove barriers to the efficient
functioning of markets.

5.1.3.
The report deals only with matters dealt with in last
year’s Cardiff I Report and not with the subject matter of
Cardiff II. The Commission’s claim to have reduced the number
of reports this year is somewhat ambiguous!

5.2. General

It would not be appropriate to deal on a comprehen-
5.2.1.
sive basis with the Cardiff Report in this Opinion, the prime
aim of which is to put
forward the Committee’s own
recommendations for the Spring 2000 Review. Hence, com-
ments will be limited in the main to those facets of the report
which relate to the second of its stated purposes.

The proposals within the Report

5.2.2.
for reform of
product and capital markets are generally supported by the
Committee. Many of these are in line with previous Com-
mission reports,
in particular the Strategy for the Internal
Market but some new initiatives have been put forward and
are welcomed by the Committee.

5.2.3.
In the Report the Commission highlights the urgency
of certain items and, in so doing, indicates, it is hoped, that a
similar approach will be taken in the Spring 2000 Review.
Such an approach would be in line with the Committee’s call,
in this Opinion, for the establishment of priorities amongst
the 111 current target actions.

The Committee feels that the overall presentation of
5.2.4.
the report is to be commended and that the supporting
information is particularly helpful enabling study in depth to
be made. However, the Committee has one general criticism

in that the term ‘economic reform’ is repeated too frequently
in the text and without it always being clear what is meant. In
some cases, it appears to be a synonym for reform of product
and capital markets and, in other cases, it appears to relate to
the wider spectrum of macro-economic policies. It also implies
that economic reform is always a good thing without defining
it specifically and without offering justification.

5.3. Specific comments

5.3.1. M a r k e t p e r f o r m a n c e

5.3.1.1.
The report understandably focuses on the assess-
ment of market performance from an economic perspective. It
is encouraging to note the evidence of increased integration of
product markets provided by statistics showing that growth in
intra-EU manufacturing trade is being sustained ahead of GDP
growth. On the other hand, the Committee notes that increased
intra-EU foreign investment
is very unevenly distributed
between the Member Countries.

5.3.1.2.
The Committee shares the concern expressed that
SMEs’ specific funding needs are not yet adequately met. The
Commission states that the 60 % of venture capital which
emanates from pension funds in the USA is double the level in
the most advanced EU market. However, no analysis is given
to indicate the extent to which this is due to regulatory barriers
(as certainly exist in some Member States), to differing bases
for risk assessment, to cultural differences which discourage
SME’s from seeking venture capital and to other factors. The
Committee draws attention to the proposals in its Opinion
on ‘European capital markets for Small and Medium-sized
Enterprises: prospects and potential obstacles to progress’ (2)
on this subject.

5.3.1.3.
The Committee endorses the importance placed on
implementing the Action Plan for Financial Services and
welcomes in principle the Commission’s recent proposals (3)
for improving access to venture capital.

5.3.2. H o r i z o n t a l I s s u e s

5.3.2.1.
The statement on entrepreneurship is strongly
welcomed as is the highlighting of the problems inhibiting the
In many
creation and development of small businesses.
Member States, much remains to be done in order to foster
new innovative enterprises which would lead to the creation
of jobs. Attention is drawn to the initiatives suggested by the
Committee in its Opinion on the Commission Communication
on Competitiveness in the face of Globalization (4).

(1) COM(2000) 26 final.

(2) OJ C 235, 27.7.1998, p. 13.
(3) COM(1999) 493.
(4) OJ C 329, 17.11.1999, pp. 49-57.

C 140/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.2000

5.3.2.2.
The Committee has consistently campaigned for
reductions in the levels of state aid and has supported previous
initiatives of the Commission towards that end. Valid emphasis
is now being placed by the Commission on reducing sectoral
and ad hoc aid as a proportion of the total. The ESC suggests
that the inclusion of aid to agriculture in the overall statistics
is necessary to give a complete picture.

5.3.2.3.
Progress towards a Single Market for public pro-
curement is not necessarily established from the data provided
by the Commission: the increase in the number of tender
invitations does not itself provide any insight into the trend of
cross-border award of contracts. Further information and
analysis would be useful. The Committee ascribes considerable
urgency to the need for implementation of existing directives
in this field and for the Commission to bring forward its
proposals to improve the functioning of the public procure-
ment process.

5.3.3. R e f o r m i n M a r k e t f o r S e r v i c e s

5.3.3.1.
The Committee agrees with the urgency attributed
by the Commission to the adoption and implementation of
the regulatory framework and for strict enforcement of
competition rules within the utility sector.

5.3.3.2. With regard to the Commission’s proposals for
Distribution, the Committee feels that no case for a less
restrictive stance on the expansion of larger retail outlets has
been made and, thus, does not support this proposed reform.

The Committee feels that not enough progress has
5.3.3.3.
been made in the field of general insurance services as for
SMEs, in particular, a single market in that field is simply not
available.

6. Recommendations for Spring 2000 Review of ‘target

actions’

6.1. General

6.1.1.
The Committee accepts that it is necessary to plan to
proceed on a broad front for the development of a coherent
policy at European level for enhanced market efficiency so that
the Single Market can deliver tangible benefits to citizens and
business.

6.1.2. Without prejudice to such broad horizontal responsi-
bilities, the Committee believes that a more focused approach,
placing emphasis on a few key areas, would bring greater
benefits within a shorter time span. For these key areas the
Commission should seek to obtain the full commitment of
both the Internal Market Council and the European Council to
ensuring that the objectives in these areas are met within the
agreed timescale.

6.1.3.
out in paragraphs 6.2 to 6.9.

The views of the Committee on key priorities are set

6.2. Enforcement

6.2.1.
Top priority should be given to streamlining legis-
lation which affects the Internal Market and which is already
being worked towards in a number of cases (e.g. SLIM), with
the aim of maximising the efficiency of the Internal Market
and preventing trade barriers and distortions of competition.
The Internal Market should also operate smoothly in the
sphere of environmental protection and health and safety.
Given the importance of these two areas for citizens — the EC
Treaty also refers to a ‘high level of protection’ — the highest
possible Community standards should be aimed for. Stricter
national standards to protect the environment and health are
compatible with the Treaty but should not be introduced for
protectionist reasons. The Committee believes that ensuring
efficient implementation and coherent enforcement of EU
legislation is absolutely essential. Consistent enforcement is
also, of course, very important in other areas particularly so
that SMEs are not placed at a disadvantage.

6.2.2.
It is noted that a target date of December 2000 has
been set for the adoption of the Commission’s Proposal for a
Regulation on the modernization of the system of supervision
and enforcement of competition law. Attention is drawn to
the fact that, whilst expressing support in principle in its recent
Opinion (1) on the proposal, the Committee pointed to a
number of difficulties and dangers which must be addressed by
means of a specific programme of preliminary and supporting
measures before implementation.

6.3. Free movement of persons

6.3.1.
The ESC has observed that the freedom of movement
of persons across national frontiers — not only for the purpose
of work — is not yet readily available to many EU citizens.
Social system differences discourage the free movement of
individuals and create difficulties for the staff of multi-national
organizations.

6.3.2. Without prejudicing necessary controls and adminis-
trative formalities, easing freedom of movement must become
a reality for citizens to feel that the Single Market is in place.
To facilitate movement for the purpose of work, there is as
much need for employers, as for employees, to be fully aware
of the relevant procedures and mutual recognition legislation.
The Committee has already called for follow-up action to be
taken on the Flynn Action Plan (of which no specific mention
is made in the Strategy Communication) and in respect to
which the Committee is currently preparing an Own Initiative
Opinion.

(1) OJ C 51, 23.2.2000, pp. 55-66.

18.5.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 140/41

6.4. Taxation

6.4.1.
The initial target actions highlighted by the Com-
mission have been given previously the general support of the
Committee. However, to achieve the broad aims of eliminating
tax barriers and unfair tax competition for the longer term,
certain principles need to be observed and preparatory work
needs to be put in place.

6.4.2. Member States are tending to re-assess taxes in order
to stay competitive and to keep attracting outside investment.
Nevertheless, the Committee feels that, where tax competition
is unfair, it must be combated if the Single Market is to work
properly. The study on company taxation to be presented in
mid-2000 by the Commission, at the request of the Council,
could provide a useful analysis of the tax basis in each Member
Country and may help to identify tax anomalies.

6.4.3.
In the meantime, minimum company tax rates
should not be pursued since a nominal tax rate which does
not consider the tax base, does not provide the whole picture.

6.4.4.
The taxation of labour as a factor of production must
also be viewed in the context of combating unemployment in
the Single Market.

6.4.5.
The harmonization of energy taxation at EU level
should be carried out where it can provide clear and direct
environmental benefits and in such a way that it will not harm
European competitiveness.

6.4.6.
The Committee believes it to be essential that, well
before enlargement takes place, real progress needs to be made
in developing a system of value added tax which is conducive
to the Internal Market and based on the country-of-origin
principle. At this point, it is worth recalling the commitment
made by the EU Council to implement a definitive VAT system,
regarding which nothing to date has been done, thereby
exacerbating the volume of tax fraud.

6.5.2.
The assessment procedure should be developed into
an instrument which will alert legislators at a very early stage
to the financial consequences of planned measures for parties
affected. A political decision can then be taken in the full
knowledge of the probable outcome. The assessment could be
entrusted to an independent body. It may be possible to draw
on the experience of the Congressional Budget Office in
Washington, USA.

The Committee has doubts as to whether the current
6.5.3.
experiment of Business Test Panels can produce meaningful
results. The random selection of respondents does not ensure
representativeness and can trigger superficial responses which
do not amount to a truly independent assessment.

6.6. Market Liberalisation

6.6.1.
Healthy competition beneficial to citizens can only
be achieved through non-discriminatory access in all Member
States and even transposition of European law must be assured.
The Committee is in favour of completing liberalisation in the
energy sector and the telecommunications markets, with
account taken of Community objectives such as security of
supply and broad access to telecommunications technologies.
In the information society, broad access to channels of
communication is essential for the maintenance and improve-
ment of competitiveness.

6.6.2.
In the view of the Committee, the adoption of a
public procurement legislative package should be one of the
absolute priorities and it calls for the Commission’s proposals
to be put forward as soon as possible.

6.7. State Aid

6.5. Better Regulation

6.5.1.
The efforts being made by both the Commission and
Member States to achieve better regulation are welcomed by
the Committee. However, the starting point for effectively
simplifying legislation should be an independent assessment
of each law’s implications:
the EU should be guided by
experience of this area in USA, Canada, Australia and the UK.

6.7.1.
State aid can lead to distortions of competition. The
Commission should therefore draw up universally recognised
criteria for a systematic re-examination of state aid. Aid should
be evaluated on the basis of these criteria and, where necessary,
aid that may have a negative impact on competition with
other measures should be eliminated. It should be borne in
mind that there are economic sectors which have special social
importance, e.g. education, to which different criteria should
therefore be applied. The Committee strongly welcomes the
recent announcement that a ‘Scoreboard’ for state aid will be
published by the Commission.

C 140/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.2000

6.8. Financial Services

Completion of the Single Market in financial services
6.8.1.
is a high priority for business and citizens as users. So that the
full potential may be realized, investors should be able to act
without undue restriction throughout the Single Market.

6.8.2.
To this end, there is a need for uniform standards in
relation to both accounting and stock exchange listing. In

addition, the creation of conditions for effective,
cross-frontier retail payments should have high priority.

low-cost

6.9. Legal Framework
6.9.1.
The European Company Statute is currently blocked
at the Council and efforts made by various previous Presi-
dencies to hammer out a compromise have failed. The
Committee calls on the Commission, or indeed the Council,
to launch a new initiative to obtain agreement. Similar
considerations apply to European Statutes for co-operatives,
mutual societies and associations.

Brussels, 30 March 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Decision of the European
Parliament and of the Council extending Decision No 710/97/EC on a co-ordinated authorisation
approach in the field of satellite personal communication services in the Community’

(2000/C 140/11)

On 20 March 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article
262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject. The rapporteur was Mr Bernabei.

The Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rules 20 and 50 of the Rules of Procedure,
subsequently decided to appoint Mr Bernabei as rapporteur-general.

At its 371st plenary session (meeting of 30 March 2000), the Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion unanimously.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
Satellite personal communication services (S-PCS) are
used with terrestrial fixed and mobile services, either as an
alternative or on an integrated basis with them. Satellite mobile
communications offer valuable opportunities to all to send
and receive messages, especially in areas where fixed infrastruc-
tures are underdeveloped.

1.3.
In spite of this potential, and the major efforts made
by industry in the sector, the market size has not yet grown as
expected, possibly in part because of regulatory brakes on
development and red tape.

1.4.
The use of radio spectrum is currently the focus of
Member State, EU and worldwide attention. The results of the
public consultation on the green paper on spectrum policy
were set out in a communication from the Commission (1). In
spite of the significant technical and technological progress

1.2.
The introduction of satellite personal communication
services therefore represents a decisive step forward in creating
networks providing global interconnectivity and mobility for
voice, data and image transmission.

(1) COM(1999) 538 of 10.11.1999.